linnyqat
linnyqat
linnyqat

Definitely agree with King's description of the movie as "cold", or sort of removed from the internal struggle of the characters depicted in the book. I read the book as a kid and ate it up; did not see the Kubrick film until a couple years ago and didn't get what the fuss was about, compared to the book. The film is

Slightly less weird, in fact.

I guess I feel like, if you were going to cop to plastic surgery, a nose job is way less controversial than the eyelid thing. Why confess to one and lie about the other? Plus the photos of her sans makeup make a compelling argument. If in fact one can use the word "compelling" at any point in this discussion.

Thanks for saying so. Cheers.

Maybe if she has a DAUGHTER, she will teach HER to take some FUCKING responsibility. Seeing as she has a SON, she is preparing him to PROTECT HIS OWN ASS and be a DECENT FUCKING PERSON.

Just because she teaches her son to be responsible for himself doesn't mean she thinks all boys are solely responsible. Why are people so quick to project moral absolutes from personal anecdotes.

To be fair, he did provide not one but two X chromosomes to Michelle.

It's okay, I just wanted a nod to grrrl power.

I demand that you name the young woman so that she can be properly shamed all over the internet.

Ahem. She.

I had to like your comment twice. Thanks for double-posting!

I thought it was your patriotic duty to go out and buy stuff. This is how you beat them!

They hate you because they want what you have.

Although Gawker called them "annoying" while Jez is still feeling the love for JT/JF.

BREAKING! This was posted on Gawker (Defamer) and Jezebel within one minute.

I guess Congress passed a law or the FDA made a regulation or something, that would have introduced the graphic labelling, but of course big tobacco came back with massive first amendment lawsuits. Sometimes the free speech thing is a little over the top. But I guess the feeling is it's a moral absolute and must be

Yeah, Australia is very progressive when it comes to cancer advocacy and programs. I have heard of studies suggesting the labels are ineffective, but I think the research is inconclusive, as there are quite a few studies suggesting the opposite. The article you linked to even suggests that the results of their

PS congratulations to your friends and/or colleagues for their work on this campaign. The ads are very well done. I work at the Canadian Cancer Society and have just posted the NYT article (sorry Jez) on Yammer (our internal comms platform).

Being in Canada, this is the first I've seen or heard of this campaign. But it reminds me of the graphic labels we have for all cigarette packaging here. The labelling has gotten progressively more graphic over the past decade or so - used to be it was just a sentence like "Smoking causes lung cancer" or similar. Then

When I was in grade 6, my bestest friend and I sang a duet of "Kindred Spirits" for the school.